This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/09/2021 at 02:02:54 (UTC).

ROSS FELIX VS MEDVERSANT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 03/02/2021 ROSS FELIX filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against MEDVERSANT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WILLIAM D. STEWART. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0283

  • Filing Date:

    03/02/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

WILLIAM D. STEWART

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

FELIX ROSS

Defendants

HADDAD MATTHEW

MEDVERSANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

DIACHENKO THOMAS

Defendant Attorney

NOWLAND THOMAS F

 

Court Documents

Case Management Statement

8/2/2021: Case Management Statement

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

8/2/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

8/16/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

8/27/2021: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE (NOT ANTI-SLAPP) - WITHOUT DEMURR...)

7/30/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE (NOT ANTI-SLAPP) - WITHOUT DEMURR...)

Reply - REPLY OF DEFENDANTS MEDVERSANT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC AND MATTHEW HADDAD TO PLAINTIFF ROSS FELIX'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF ROSS FELIX'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

7/23/2021: Reply - REPLY OF DEFENDANTS MEDVERSANT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC AND MATTHEW HADDAD TO PLAINTIFF ROSS FELIX'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF ROSS FELIX'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

7/16/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

7/16/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)

3/12/2021: Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE CASE REASSIGNMENT UPON CCP 170.6 CHALLENGE) OF 05/14/2021

5/14/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE CASE REASSIGNMENT UPON CCP 170.6 CHALLENGE) OF 05/14/2021

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

5/17/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

6/28/2021: Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

Notice of Appearance

4/2/2021: Notice of Appearance

Notice of Case Management Conference

3/2/2021: Notice of Case Management Conference

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

3/2/2021: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Order to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service

3/2/2021: Order to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

3/2/2021: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

Complaint

3/2/2021: Complaint

22 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/29/2021
  • Hearing11/29/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department A at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2021
  • Hearing09/24/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department A at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502; Hearing on Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Ross Felix (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2021
  • DocketDeclaration (of Thomas M. Diachenko in Support of Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint); Filed by Ross Felix (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2021
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by Ross Felix (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2021
  • DocketMotion for Leave (to File Second Amended Complaint); Filed by Ross Felix (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2021
  • DocketMemorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by Ross Felix (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2021
  • DocketAnswer (to First Amended Complaint); Filed by Medversant Technologies, LLC (Defendant); Matthew Haddad (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
23 More Docket Entries
  • 05/14/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re Case Reassignment Upon CCP 170.6 Challenge)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • DocketAmended Complaint ( (1st)); Filed by Ross Felix (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2021
  • DocketNotice of Appearance; Filed by Medversant Technologies, LLC (Defendant); Matthew Haddad (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2021
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Ross Felix (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Ross Felix (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Ross Felix (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Ross Felix (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 21GDCV00283 Hearing Date: July 30, 2021 Dept: A

Motion to Strike

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n

Calendar:

\r\n
\r\n

12

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

Case No.:

\r\n
\r\n

21GDCV00283

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

Hearing Date:

\r\n
\r\n

July 30, 2021

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

Action Filed:

\r\n
\r\n

March 02, 2021

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

Trial Date:

\r\n
\r\n

Not Set

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n

MP:

\r\n
\r\n

Plaintiff Ross Felix

\r\n
\r\n

RP:

\r\n
\r\n

Defendants Medversant Technologies, LLC; Matthew\r\n Haddad

\r\n
\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ALLEGATIONS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Ross Felix ("Plaintiff")\r\nfiled suit against Defendants Medversant Technologies, LLC, a California\r\nLimited Company ("Medversant") and Matthew Haddad\r\n("Haddad", and together, "Defendants"), alleging that\r\nPlaintiff was employed by Medversant from January of 2014 to April of 2020,\r\nwhen Medversant terminated Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Medversant, with\r\nHaddad as the sole manager and CEO, committed numerous labor violations against\r\nPlaintiff and other employees during this time.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on March 02, 2021\r\nand a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on May 12, 2021, alleging\r\neleven (11) causes of action sounding in: (1) Retaliation; (2) Wrongful\r\nDischarge; (3) Failure to Pay Wages; (4) Failure to Pay Overtime; (5) Record\r\nViolations; (6) Pay-Stub Violations; (7) Waiting Time Penalties; (8) Unfair\r\nBusiness Practices; (9) Failure to Produce; (10); Failure to Indemnify; and\r\n(11) LC § 2699 PAGA Claims.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

PRESENTATION:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court received the motion to\r\nstrike, filed by Defendants, on June 28, 2021; the opposition, filed by\r\nPlaintiff, on July 16, 2021; and the reply, filed by Defendants, on July 23,\r\n2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

RELIEF REQUESTED:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants move to strike the following\r\nportions of the FAC:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

1. Page 6, Paragraph 23, lines 21-23;

\r\n\r\n

2. Page 8, Paragraph 31, lines 8-10;

\r\n\r\n

3. Prayer for Relief, Page 19, Paragraph 7,\r\nline 11.

\r\n\r\n

4. Page 6, Paragraph 18, line 4, “226.6”;

\r\n\r\n

5. Page 6, Paragraph 20, line 14, “98.6”;

\r\n\r\n

6. Page 7, Paragraph 27, lines 19-20, “201.5,\r\n201.7, 204,” “206.5, 209,” “218,” “226, 226.6,” and “500”;

\r\n\r\n

7. Page 8, Paragraph 35, lines 23-25;

\r\n\r\n

8. Page 9, Paragraph 39, lines 21-22, “and\r\nCivil Code § 3289”;

\r\n\r\n

9. Page 9, Paragraph 39, line 23, “218.6”;

\r\n\r\n

10. Page 10, Paragraph 45, line 25, “226”;

\r\n\r\n

11. Page 11, Paragraph 47, line 12, “and Civil\r\nCode section 3289.”

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

DISCUSSION:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Standard\r\nof Review – Motion to Strike Punitive Claims – The proper procedure to\r\nattack false allegations in a pleading is a motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc.,\r\n§ 436, subd. (a).) In granting a motion to strike made under CCP § 435, “[t]he\r\ncourt may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435 [notice of motion to\r\nstrike whole or part of complaint], or at any time in its discretion, and upon\r\nterms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter\r\ninserted in any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).) Irrelevant\r\nmatters include immaterial allegations that are not essential to the claim or\r\nthose not pertinent to or supported by an otherwise sufficient claim. (Code\r\nCiv. Proc., § 431.10.) The court may also “[s]trike out all or any part of any\r\npleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court\r\nrule, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

To\r\nsucceed on a motion to strike punitive damages allegations, it must be said as\r\na matter of law that the alleged behavior was not so vile, base, or\r\ncontemptible that it would not be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent\r\npeople. (Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 1217, 1228-1229.)\r\n“Under the statute, malice does not require actual intent to harm. Conscious\r\ndisregard for the safety of another may be sufficient where the defendant is\r\naware of the probable dangerous consequences of his or her conduct and he or\r\nshe willfully fails to avoid such consequences. Malice may be proved either\r\nexpressly through direct evidence or by implication through indirect evidence\r\nfrom which the jury draws inferences.” (Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220\r\nCal. App. 4th 1270, 1299) (internal quotations omitted).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Oppression\r\n– First, Civil Code § 3294(c)(2) defines “oppression” as “despicable conduct\r\nthat subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of\r\nthat person’s rights.”

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Fraud\r\n– Next, under Civil Code § 3294(c)(3), “fraud” is defined as “intentional\r\nmisrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the\r\ndefendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving\r\na person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” Moreover, as\r\nnoted in Lehto v. Underground Constr. Co. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 933, to plead\r\nfraud as a basis for punitive damages, the plaintiff must allege “the facts and\r\ncircumstances which constitute the fraud … clearly, concisely, and with\r\nsufficient particularity to apprise the opposite party of what he is called on\r\nto answer, and to enable the court to determine whether, on the facts pleaded,\r\nthere is any foundation, prima facie at least, for the charge of fraud.” (Lehto\r\nv. Underground Constr. Co. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 933, 944.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Malice\r\n– Finally, under Civil Code § 3294(c)(1), “malice” is defined as “conduct which\r\nis intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable\r\nconduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious\r\ndisregard of the rights or safety of others.” “Under the statute, malice does\r\nnot require actual intent to harm. Conscious disregard for the safety of\r\nanother may be sufficient where the defendant is aware of the probable\r\ndangerous consequences of his or her conduct and he or she willfully fails to\r\navoid such consequences. Malice may be proved either expressly through direct\r\nevidence or by implication through indirect evidence from which the jury draws\r\ninferences.” (Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal. App. 4th 1270, 1299\r\n(internal quotations omitted).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Meet\r\nand Confer – Motion to Strike – CCP § 435.5(a) provides that before filing\r\na motion to strike, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by\r\ntelephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion\r\nto strike for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that\r\nresolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On review of the Declaration of Anna E. Caludac, the\r\nCourt finds that meet and confer requirements have been satisfied to code.\r\n(Decl. Caludac, ¶¶ 3-13.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Merits – As\r\na preliminary matter, Defendants\' motion makes arguments concerning a broad\r\nswath of the FAC, in some cases exceeding the bounds of the portions that\r\nDefendants requested to be stricken. California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1322(a)\r\nrequires that "[a] notice of motion to strike a portion of a pleading must\r\nquote in full the portions sought to be stricken except where the motion is to\r\nstrike an entire paragraph, cause of action, count, or defense. Specifications\r\nin a notice must be numbered consecutively." The Court will thus only\r\naddress arguments insofar as they relate to the numbered and quoted requests to\r\nstrike.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants first argue that the punitive damage claims\r\nshould be stricken as the FAC does not plead specific facts showing Defendants\'\r\ncommission of acts with malice, oppression, or fraud. Second, Defendants argue\r\nthat all references in the pleading to Labor Code §§ 226.6, 98.6, 216, 201.5,\r\n201.7, 204, 206.5, 209, 218, 226, and 500, and Civil Code § 3289 should be\r\nstricken as they are unsupported by the allegations and so irrelevant and\r\nimproper.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In opposition, Plaintiff concedes and presents no\r\nobjection to striking references to Labor Code §§ 201.5, 201.7, and 209.\r\nPlaintiff argues that the remaining statutory references, as well as the punitive\r\ndamage prayer, should not be stricken, as the FAC alleges sufficient facts to\r\nsupport each of the claims.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In reply, Defendants further argue that references to\r\nLabor Code §§ 98.6 and 216 should be stricken due to Plaintiff\'s failure\r\nto substantively oppose the motion to strike as to those statutes. The Court\r\nnotes that the motion does not request to strike any references to Labor Code\r\n§ 216. Defendants also concede to Plaintiff\'s arguments regarding Labor\r\nCode §§ 218.6 and 3289.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Labor Code §§ 226 and 226.6 – Labor Code § 226.6 provides:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Any employer\r\nwho knowingly and intentionally violates the provisions of Section 226, or any\r\nofficer, agent, employee, fiduciary, or other person who has the control,\r\nreceipt, custody, or disposal of, or pays, the wages due any employee, and who\r\nknowingly and intentionally participates or aids in the violation of any\r\nprovision of Section 226 is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction\r\nthereof, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or be\r\nimprisoned not to exceed one year, or both, at the discretion of the court.\r\nThat fine or imprisonment, or both, shall be in addition to any other penalty\r\nprovided by law.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Labor Code § 226 provides various requirements on\r\nemployers to provide wage statements and produce wage records.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants argue that Labor Code §§ 226 and\r\n226.6 regulate failure to produce itemized wage statements and have nothing to\r\ndo with the action. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Labor Code § 226\r\ndetails requirements for times that must be recorded on a wage statement,\r\nincluding overtime wages, and describes an employer\'s duties to produce wage\r\nstatement records. Plaintiff further argues that reference to Labor Code §\r\n226.6\'s criminal penalties supports the punitive damages claim and supports PAGA\r\nclaims.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On review of the FAC, the Court finds that the\r\npleading sufficiently alleges that Medversant issued late, missing, and\r\ninaccurate wage statements to Plaintiff and other employees pursuant to Labor\r\nCode § 226. (FAC, ¶¶ 9, 10, 57.) As to Labor Code § 226.6, Defendants move\r\nto strike references to the statute in under the first and second causes of\r\naction. As to the first cause of action sounding in retaliation, the pleading\r\nalleges that Plaintiff complained to Defendants concerning "bounced"\r\npaychecks, and that Defendants subsequently terminated Plaintiff in\r\nretaliation. (FAC, ¶ 18.) But the pleading also "alleges and\r\nincorporates" all paragraphs outside the retaliation claim section (FAC,\r\n¶ 15), and in another section, alleges that "MEDVERSANT terminated\r\nFELIX because he raised issues of illegal pay practices including knowing\r\nviolation of the California Labor Code as described throughout this Complaint"\r\n(FAC, ¶ 29). Each cause of action, in fact, incorporates all paragraphs\r\noutside of the cause of action. These two allegations together sufficiently\r\nallege that Plaintiff raised violations of Labor Code § 226.6 and that\r\nDefendants retaliated against Plaintiff for this action. As to the second cause\r\nof action sounding in wrongful discharge against public policy, the FAC cites\r\nto Labor Code § 98.6, which prohibits employers from discharging,\r\ndiscriminating against, retaliating against, or taking any adverse action\r\nagainst an employee for conduct delineated in the chapter. The FAC appears to\r\ninclude Labor Code § 226.6 in a retaliation claim under Labor Code § 98.6\r\nin paragraph 29 of the pleading: "MEDVERSANT terminated FELIX because he\r\nraised issues of illegal pay practices including knowing violation of the\r\nCalifornia Labor Code as described throughout this Complaint." The\r\npleading thus sufficiently shows that Labor Code § 226.6 is an assertion\r\nof statutory rights under the wrongful discharge against public policy claim.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court will thus deny the motion to strike references\r\nto Labor Code §§ 226 and 226.6 as to page 6, paragraph 18, line 4; page 7,\r\nparagraph 27, lines 19-20; and page 10, paragraph 45, line 25.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Labor Code § 98.6 – Labor Code\r\n§ 98.6 prohibits employers from discharging, discriminating against,\r\nretaliating against, or taking any adverse action against an employee for\r\nconduct delineated in the chapter. In paragraph 20, the FAC alleges that\r\nPlaintiff is entitled to recover interest, attorney\'s fees, and costs under\r\nLabor Code § 98.6. The statute does not provide for recovery of attorney\'s fees,\r\nand as Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants\' argument, the Court considers\r\nPlaintiff to have implicitly conceded the issue.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court will thus grant the motion to strike\r\nthe specific reference to Labor Code § 98.6 as to page 6, paragraph 20, line 14\r\nwith leave to amend.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Labor Code §§ 201.5, 201.7, and 209 – As\r\nPlaintiff presents no objection to striking references to Labor Code\r\n§§ 201.5, 201.7, and 209, the Court will grant the motion to strike\r\nreference to the statutes as to page 7, paragraph 27, lines 19-20 without leave\r\nto amend.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Labor Code §§ 204, 206.5, 218, 218.6, and\r\n500 – Labor Code § 204 provides: "All wages, other than those\r\nmentioned in Section 201, 201.3, 202, 204.1, or 204.2, earned by any person in\r\nany employment are due and payable twice during each calendar month, on days\r\ndesignated in advance by the employer as the regular paydays."

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Labor Code § 206.5 provides in part:\r\n"An employer shall not require the execution of a release of a claim or\r\nright on account of wages due, or to become due, or made as an advance on wages\r\nto be earned, unless payment of those wages has been made. "

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Labor Code § 218 provides, in part: "Nothing\r\nin this article shall limit the right of any wage claimant to sue directly or\r\nthrough an assignee for any wages or penalty due him under this article."

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Labor Code § 218.6 provides: "In any\r\naction brought for the nonpayment of wages, the court shall award interest on\r\nall due and unpaid wages at the rate of interest specified in subdivision (b)\r\nof Section 3289 of the Civil Code, which shall accrue from the date that the\r\nwages were due and payable . . . ."

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Labor Code § 500 provides:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For\r\npurposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the following\r\nmeanings:

\r\n\r\n

(a) “Workday”\r\nand “day” mean any consecutive 24–hour period commencing at the same time each\r\ncalendar day.

\r\n\r\n

(b) “Workweek”\r\nand “week” mean any seven consecutive days, starting with the same calendar day\r\neach week. “Workweek” is a fixed and regularly recurring period of 168 hours,\r\nseven consecutive 24–hour periods.

\r\n\r\n

(c) “Alternative\r\nworkweek schedule” means any regularly scheduled workweek requiring an employee\r\nto work more than eight hours in a 24–hour period.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants move to strike the reference to the\r\nstatutes under the Labor Code § 98.6 claim. (FAC, ¶ 27.) The FAC sufficiently\r\nalleges that Defendants often paid Plaintiff and other employees late and with\r\nbounced paychecks, and terminated Plaintiff\'s employment after Plaintiff\r\ncomplained about these practices, which constitutes sufficient facts supporting\r\nLabor Code §§ 204, 206.5, 218, and 218.6. (FAC, ¶ 18.) Labor Code §\r\n500 gives context to Labor Code § 510, which provides further definitions for\r\novertime pay, and is supported by allegations that Defendants failed to\r\ncompensate Plaintiff for overtime hours worked. (FAC, ¶¶ 41-43.) The FAC\r\nthus finds support in the statutes.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court will thus deny the motion to strike\r\nreferences to Labor Code §§ 204, 206.5, 218, 218.6, and 500 as to page 7,\r\nparagraph 27, lines 19-20 and page 9, paragraph 39, line 23.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Civil Code § 3289 – Civil Code § 3289\r\nprovides in part:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(a) Any\r\nlegal rate of interest stipulated by a contract remains chargeable after a\r\nbreach thereof, as before, until the contract is superseded by a verdict or\r\nother new obligation.

\r\n\r\n

(b) If\r\na contract entered into after January 1, 1986, does not stipulate a legal rate\r\nof interest, the obligation shall bear interest at a rate of 10 percent per\r\nannum after a breach.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants move to strike references to the\r\nstatute under the third cause of action sounding in failure to pay wages and\r\nthe fourth cause of action sounding in failure to pay overtime wages. The FAC\r\nsufficiently alleges that Defendants often paid Plaintiff and other employees\r\nlate and with bounced paychecks (FAC, ¶ 18); and issued wage statements\r\nwith inaccurate gross wage, total hours, and net wage amounts (FAC, ¶ 10), and\r\nthus supports the reference to Civil Code § 3289 under the third and\r\nfourth causes of action.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court will thus deny the motion to strike\r\nreferences to Civil Code § 3289 as to page 9, paragraph 39, lines 21-22\r\nand page 11, paragraph 47, line 12.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Punitive Damages – Defendants move to\r\nstrike punitive damage claims under the second cause of action. On review of\r\nthe FAC, the Court finds that the factual allegations pled in support of\r\npunitive damages are sufficient. The FAC alleges sufficient facts supporting\r\nallegations of malice and oppression, including specific interactions between\r\nHaddad and Plaintiff. (FAC, ¶¶ 8-13.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court will thus deny the motion to strike\r\nas to the punitive damage claims.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

---

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In the event the parties submit on this\r\ntentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its\r\ndiscretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either\r\nelectronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s\r\nrecords.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ORDER

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Ross\r\nFelix\'s Motion to Strike came on regularly for hearing on July 30, 2021, with\r\nappearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the\r\ncourt, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS GRANTED AS TO THE\r\nREFERENCE TO LABOR CODE § 98.6 IN PARAGRAPH 20, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, AND THE\r\nREFERENCE TO LABOR CODE §§ 201.5, 201.7, AND 209 IN PARAGRAPH 27, WITHOUT LEAVE\r\nTO AMEND, AND THE MOTION IS OTHERWISE DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

DATE: \r\n_______________ _______________________________

\r\n\r\n

\r\nJUDGE

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where MEDVERSANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC is a litigant